ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL flOARD
    February 21, 1974
    HOERNER WALDORF CORPORATION,
    Petitioner,
    PCB 73—548
    vs.
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
    This is a Petition for Variance by
    the
    Hoerner Waldorf
    Corporation (hereinafter Petitioner) filed with the
    Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter Agency) on
    December 27, 1973.
    Petitioner’s facility is located in Chicago, Cook County.
    It is engaged in the manufacture of folding paper containers.
    The process involves laminating, coating, printing, die
    cutting, and glueing the paper Lo form the desired container.
    Petitioner requests a Variance from Rule 205(f) of
    the Illinois Air Pollution ControlRegulations for a period
    of one year, or less, if the new equipment and control device,
    which it has ordered, is operational before a one year time
    interval.
    Petitioner states that emissions will be brought into
    compliance by the installation of a new gravure press which
    will handle two operations of the laminator that emit
    photochemically reactive organic material and the existing
    gravure press that emits photochemically reactive organic
    material. The old press will be dismantled.
    Petitioner states that the emissions from the laminator
    will be controlled by transferring the operations that emit
    photochemically reactive organic material to the new gravure
    press and that emissions of photochemically reactive organic
    material from the new gravure press will be controlled by a
    direct gas fired afterburner with heat recovery.
    Petitioner’s timetable to achieve compliance is as
    follows:
    11 —355
    —2—
    Initial delivery of gravure press components May 15, 1974
    Complete delivery of gravure press
    August 15,
    1974
    Complete installation
    December 15, 1974
    Petitioner’s facility is located in an industrial
    complex. There are no residences
    in the
    immediate vicinity
    and no odor nuisance exits.
    New equipment will cost Petitioner $856,916. Of this,
    $101,516 will pay for pollution control equipment.
    The Agency agrees that it would have been unreasonable
    to expect Petitioner to purchase custom made control equipment
    for an obsolete machine when it was possible to ob~erve and
    fully evaluate new euuipment.
    Bince the purchase order has
    been let for the sew eeuinuent,
    it would be an arbitrary
    and
    unreasonable
    hardship if Petitioner
    were compelled to install
    control equipment
    t~1
    a t.eoporary nature.
    fhe Agency believes
    ~hac the Peti~tic ocr’ s control program
    will be effective
    in substantial iv ceduc mg emissions from
    this facility
    The Aoencv believes
    that tIe
    scitioser’ s timetable for
    comp.let.ion of its comoli.ance oroorum is reasonai..le.
    We agree.
    Thas Opinion constitutes
    the findlags of fact and
    ~hc.lus
    ions of law o.f the Board
    IT IS THE ORDER of the. IPoiLl.utAan itntroi
    Board that:
    1.
    PetItioner
    he cronted a Variance from the provisions
    of .Pule 205(f) until December 31, 1974, during which period
    the proper control equipment wil.l be installed,
    2, Petitioner shall
    file monthly progress
    reports with
    the Igency, detailing therein its. progress toward achieving
    compliance.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, certify that the ab ye ~pinion and
    Order
    byavoteof~-~
    ~
    day of
    ~
    1974
    11 —356

    Back to top